30

Are the notions of “end goals,” “protected interests,” and “defended social values” purely chimerical in criminal law? Are they nothing more than a political message and a system for legitimizing judicial decisions? Should we abandon these references to values when classifying crimes and offenses and legally characterizing disputed facts? Should we adopt another presentation, proposed by Professor Dreyer, no longer reasoning in terms of a “good” that has been violated but of the “evil” that determined the agent’s conduct? This article defends these classic notions (goals, interests, and values) because they stem from an understanding of common things—common both in the sense of being simple and in that of being widely shared. Values can be unconscious but active, just as goals and interests can be implicit but very real. Their “imprint” in the social fabric is an argument in favor of their preservation.